Progressives and working class people in the US (not to mention Central Americans and plants and animals everywhere) were none too happy under Reagan’s thumb; my question is are 'the Bush years' even worse?

Republicans are of course welcome to expound upon the fine achievements of both administrations.

I just remembered this cartoon by Steve Bell, from when Reagan died, and thought it apt.

I think I have option paralysis.

Time will tell, but I suspect it will be Bush II.

This is a great question. I lean towards Bush as being worse, simply because he has an ignorance, a willfull ignorance that I find very disturbing. He doesn't read the news - he gets it from Andy and Condi because he wants to avoid "filter". I've heard (Reagan was president from my 4th year through my 11th, so I don't have many direct memories of his administration) that Reagan, early in the administration, cut taxes, and then, when it became clear that those tax cuts were not the right policy, reversed them. This is something that Bush wouldn't do. He might flip-flop for reasons of political expediency (steel tariffs, 9/11 commission, to name but two of many), but not because he reevaluated the facts and came to a more informed decision, and never ever on the issue of tax cuts. This complete unwillingness to consider facts or evidence on any issue is very distressing to me.

I think Bush has done about as much harm as Reagan did, and he still has 4 more years to go with no sign of stopping. I mean, from the perspective of an air traffic controller or a Central American nun, it would be Reagan, but I am leaning toward Bush. But I could probably be swayed. A lot of things to consider.

I was pretty young during the Reagan Administration, so I don't know if I can make a fair comparison between the two; what can touch my fresh and raw outrage?

In an attempt to make a comparison, one thing that does strike me is that Reagan seemed to believe in his positions. Let me know if you have a different impression, but at least Reagan seemed to have some integrity.

Also, Reagan seemed to be in charge of his administration, not the other way around. Reagan checked the neo-cons, for example, instead of letting them rush around, headstrong and self-righteous, ripping up the countryside.

All of this is presented as a contrast to Bush, of course. (Odd, rereading what I wrote, it sounds like I'm lauding Reagan, which I certainly don't mean to do.)

I haven't voted, yet, as I'm waiting to hear from the rest of the crowd's hopefully better-informed ideas about Reagan.

The war makes Bush worse by every metric that I care about. I cannot think of the last president who did not visit casual death on the world, but the scope of what is going on is too big for me to understand. There are generations that are not going to forgive us, and I dread being made to pay in blood for what I cannot stop.

And then there's this.

George Bush thrice refused to attempt to kill Zarqawi because he thought it would hurt the case for war in Iraq. Let me say it again: George Bush thrice refused to even try to kill a known enemy of the United States, with direct and known connections to groups that had killed Americans and were continuing to kill people in terrorist attacks because he thought it would hurt the case for war against a weak country that had never attacked the United States and had no capability to attack the United States. Let me repeat: the president refused to act to protect the safety of the citizens of the United States because he felt that it would reduce international support for another project which had nothing (or, if we're being generous, very little) to do with protecting the safety of the citizens of the United States. Again: the president felt it was less important to do what should be his number one duty (protecting you and me from being killed by people who want to kill us) than it was to attempt to advance the fantastical pipe-dreams of his friends in Washington.

Edit: "I'm not exactly sure what you mean, 'passes the global test,' [that] you take preemptive action if you pass a global test," he said during the debate. "My attitude is you take preemptive action in order to protect the American people, that you act in order to make this country secure."

If only he meant it.

Linus Van Pelt wrote:George Bush thrice refused to attempt to kill Zarqawi because he thought it would hurt the case for war in Iraq.

Thanks, Linus. That reminded me of this: http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2004-03-28-troop-shifts_x.htm

In 2002, troops from the 5th Special Forces Group who specialize in the Middle East were pulled out of the hunt for Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan to prepare for their next assignment: Iraq. Their replacements were troops with expertise in Spanish cultures.

An interesting bit written by Ronald Reagan's son, about GWB:

Common Dreams

I think Dubya holds the worst cards on all ends of policy: foreign, domestic, environmental, - not to mention his cutting back on veteran funding, stem cell research, No Child Left Behind etc etc.

bumble wrote:

Linus Van Pelt wrote:George Bush thrice refused to attempt to kill Zarqawi because he thought it would hurt the case for war in Iraq.

Thanks, Linus. That reminded me of this: http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2004-03-28-troop-shifts_x.htm

In 2002, troops from the 5th Special Forces Group who specialize in the Middle East were pulled out of the hunt for Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan to prepare for their next assignment: Iraq. Their replacements were troops with expertise in Spanish cultures.

Yes, and don't forget this, where the money which congress appropriated specifically for Afghanistan which was unlawfully shifted into planning for Iraq. Note: for "Bush Officials Deny", you may always read "It cannot be doubted that".

This is like choosing between the alligator pit and the auto da fe. I was 11 when Reagan was inagurated for the first time, so I remember him rrather well. I did not like the man, but there was not the paranoia and (as one poster said) willful ignorance of facts. Also, Reagan (and Bush I) were not beholden to the religious right in the way that W is. They paid them lip service, but no more. Then again, if you list Reagan's "accomplishments", it's not pretty.

Reagan:
Air Traffic Controllers fired
Aid to Contra Death Squads
Grenada
War on Drugs (still with us)
Evil Empire rhetoric
Massive cuts in social programs (and attendant homelessness)
Yuppies (an effect of the tax cuts)

This is to name only a few. At least we had a booming economy/stock market under Reagan. With Bush, we have all the plop plop fizz fizz of fiscal and social conservativism, but with none of the economic relief.